On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:25:42 -0700, "Chris Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>imaging like this, it is really only meaningful to talk about resolution in >an angular sense, not in terms of the number of pixels. When we look at the I think the problem is that we were using two different meanings of the word "resolution". For you, the one that matters (and that you were going by) is the one related to the density of information the lens can "pick up" (trying to avoid using the term "resolve"). But for me, working mostly with the output end, not the input end, "resolution" means the number of pixels, period (given, again, that the optics are good enough that the pixels are "meaningful"). Meaning, when I think of my monitor resolution, I think in the terms of it being 1600x1200, period, not "1600x1200 over a 19 inch diagonal surface". And, again, when I think of the resolution of the output of my camera, I think of it as 2560x1920, peroid, not "2560x1920 over a 2/3 inch CCD" (which, at least according to a quick look at one source, is about 5 microns per CCD cell). So when the earlier poster asked about higer resolution photos being available in the context of wanting a large photographic print of the image, IMHO the response that the rover's CCD isn't very high resolution is the proper use of the term "resolution" as related to the issue of the size of photographic prints-- on the output end, it doesn't matter what the limits of the optics and CCD are-- what matters is that there are not and will not be enough meaningful pixels of information to get a good looking large print. ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
